Time Machine: Bomb-Bomb Iran
by S.J. Masty

“Long before President McCain was elected,” the three-star general said, “he hinted at attacking Iran in songs and jokes. After the assault, he made his famous address. But we still need citizens to more fully appreciate the victorious details of Operation Bodacious Mayhem.”

The most senior officers in each of the armed services nodded, while the young officer inhaled deeply, then began his briefing. “Very well, sir. As we all know, soon after his inauguration, President McCain ordered the attack on Iran on Jan. 29, 2009.

“Carried out with support from Israel and Britain, it hit at least 10 targets with tactical nuclear weapons and nearly 800 other targets with conventional weapons.

It is difficult for the White House to say whether it destroyed an Iranian nuclear weapons program because intelligence agencies said it did not exist anyway. Approximately 350,000 civilians and military were said to be casualties.”

“We know this already,” an admiral gently said.

“On Jan. 30,” the major continued, “two small tankers were scuttled in the Straits of Hormuz, presumably by Iranian frogmen, effectively closing the channel for around three months if there are no hostilities. This drove the price of crude oil from $142 a barrel to $187.”

The man continued: “On Feb. 3, a land-to-land missile struck the giant Saudi oil refinery almost in line of sight from the Iranian coast, causing at least six months in suspended production and a significant drop in Saudi oil exports. The price of oil rose to $233.

“On Feb. 15, President Ahmedinejad, declaring that Iranians would ‘eat grass if need be,’ halted all Iranian oil production and said the wells were mined to discourage foreign invasion. Oil rose to $288 a barrel. Both Russia and Venezuela are threatening to reduce oil sales, or divert them to China from Europe, protesting the first use of nukes since 1945.”

“Japan,” he added, “having depleted only six weeks of strategic oil reserves, is in open free fall. China and Korea, with less than three months’ reserves each, have ordered industry onto three-day working weeks. With investors expecting an economic meltdown in the Pacific Basin, the value of the world’s stock markets fell 28 percent before their respective governments ordered them closed 10 days ago. That raised the cost of oil to around $342 a barrel today.”

“We expected some repercussions,” a major general said, and a few others nodded.

“There have been political aftershocks,” the speaker explained. “Anti-American riots broke out in at least 88 cities worldwide, and the American ambassadors and their families were killed by mobs in Indonesia, Kenya and Colombia. The royal family of Qatar was assassinated eight days ago, and it is still unclear who is in charge because of fighting among Sunni radical groups. The governments of Jordan and Egypt are tottering, and either may fall before the weekend. Oil is expected to rise to more than $400 a barrel within two weeks.”

“As I told President Ahmedinejad this morning and our beloved supreme leader, Seyyid Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, just afterward,” he concluded, “our strategy has been an enormous success. There is now not a thing that America can do to avoid its own economic destruction or that of its allies, suppliers and customers. We suffered terribly from their bloodlust, but our revenge is fuller and sweeter.”

The leaders of the Iranian army, navy and air force rose to their feet, applauding.

Reprinted from The DC Examiner with permission.

S.J. Masty a former Washington speechwriter, is an international communication consultant based in London. He is a contributor to the Examiner newspaper group

thats the most anti american junk ive read in a while.have they resorted to fiction.i dont understand people.

bad for the lungs

AntiAmerican? Okay, Brownshirt, tell me how?

It's taking a very real possibility and projecting futurist. If thats Anti-American, then everyone from Pat Freaking Buchanan to Dr. Paul to the Entirety of the NeoCon subparty are in fact also antiamerican.


This explores foriegn policy, the bush doctrine of preemptive strikes and what the results could be. If you think thats antiamerican, then you don't understand the concepts of blowback and the consequences of intervention.

is iran a threat to america???????????

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Well is it???

op.....do u think iran is a threat to america???????????????????????????

Doesn't seem like it too me, unless we have Americans in their backyard...oh, thats right, we're occupying Iraq, which is literally in Irans backyard.

Iran isn't doing anything that frightens me. They've been shown to not be developing weapons, IAEA proved that.

So, why does this country get to tell others whether or not they get to develope Nuclear capabilities? Even if Iran got the bomb, that wouldn't worry, me, A(We stood down the Soviets and B(It would be the natural progression in an arms race with Israel.

If we had a policy of NonIntervention, Iran would have to do plenty of work, that they don't have the tools to utilize, to attack us on our soil.

would iran be a threat to america if the had nucs or other wmds???
(seeing in to the future so to speak)

seeing as they do not currently have wmds..if they choose to make them..does that mean they have an enemy that they want to pursue???

Every nation with a Nuke is a threat to all the others around them. I don't think we'd be in as much danger as the Israelis would be and of course we're their daddy, so we'd end up in the middle of it, but no, I don't think they'd be anymore of a threat than they are now.

In fact, I don't recall Iran running around invaded countries and using preemptive war (read war of aggression).

Thats us right now.

so i agree, iran proably isnt a giant threat to us.

but they are a threat to iraq, when our soldiers come home.

perhaps its a smart strategy to let Iran assume that we are worried about them. that we are watching them. and that america is not afraid to be the aggressor.




and thing is..in america we are destroying some of our weapons.. VX nerve gas for instance...if the united states was planning on taking over the world for OUR intrests, why would we destroy this gas???
perhaps we are trying to keep WMDs to a minimum.
If iran doesnt have WMDs as of now...why should they?? they arent playing with the big boys are they?? do THEY feel a need to..and if so why??

War with Iran will do 2 things important to neocons:

1. Feed the insatiable war machine corporations (with borrowed funds, of course).
2. Keep the oil region unstable, keeping crude artificially high (risk factor) and oil company profits at record highs.

We make just as much as we destroy. If that wasn't the case then we would never have had a weaponized anthrax attack via the old inside job.

It's not about keeping WMD's to a minimum. NeoCons from the project for a new american century, wrote Rebuilding Americas Defenses.

Some people have compared it to Hitler's publication of Mein Kampf, which was ignored
until after the war was over.
--------------------------------------------------
The PNAC philosophy was formed in response to the ending of Cold War hostilities with Russia and the emergence of America as the world's only preeminent superpower. Claiming that this is a "strategic moment" that should not be squandered, members of PNAC say that America should use its position to advance its power and interests into all areas of the globe. They believe the time is ripe for establishing democracies in regimes considered hostile to U.S. interests and are not hesitant to advise the use of military means to achieve those ends.

PNAC members on the Bush team include Vice-President **** Cheney and his top national security assistant, I. Lewis Libby; Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld; Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; National Security Council member Eliot Abrams; Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton; and former Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle. Other PNAC members exerting influence on U.S. policy are the President of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq Randy Scheunemann, Republican Party leader Bruce Jackson and current PNAC chairman William Kristol, conservative writer for the Weekly Standard. Jeb Bush, the president's brother and governor of Florida, is also a member.

Their campaign to overthrow Hussein was unsuccessful during the Clinton presidency and early days of Bush's term, but on 9/11 they found the event they needed to push for the overthrow of Hussein. Within 24 hours both Wolfowitz and Cheney were calling for an invasion of Iraq, even before anyone knew who had been responsible for the attacks.

Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" — the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Their central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on their website at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting regime change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world will be unified under the banner of American democracy.

Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.

Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?

The document is written with all of the single-mindedness, unilateralism and inattention to international ramifications (with either friend or foe) that the Bush administration displayed in its current build-up for war with Iraq.


"In conclusion, it should be clear that these four essential missions for maintaining American military preeminence are quite separate and distinct from one another – none should be considered a 'lesser included case' of another, even though they are closely related and may, in some cases, require similar sorts of forces. Conversely, the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. The failure to build missile defenses will put America and her allies at grave risk and compromise the exercise of American power abroad. Conventional forces that are insufficient to fight multiple theater wars simultaneously cannot protect American global interests and allies. Neglect or withdrawal from constabulary missions will increase the likelihood of larger wars breaking out and encourage petty tyrants to defy American interests and ideals. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow’s challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end"


On Preserving American Preeminence

"Since today’s peace is the unique product of American preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical to American interests and principles. The price of American preeminence is that, just as it was actively obtained, it must be actively maintained" (p. 73).

"The fourth element in American force posture – and certainly the one which holds the key to any longer-term hopes to extend the current Pax Americana – is the mission to transform U.S. military forces to meet new geopolitical and technological challenges" (p. 11).

"America’s armed forces, it seemed, could either prepare for the future by retreating from its role as the essential defender of today’s global security order, or it could take care of current business but be unprepared for tomorrow’s threats and tomorrow’s battlefields" (p. i).

"Moreover, America stands at the head of a system of alliances which includes the world’s other leading democratic powers. At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined" (p. i).

B. Securing Global Hegemony

"In a larger sense, the new president will choose whether today’s 'unipolar moment,' to use columnist Charles Krauthammer’s phrase for America’s current geopolitical preeminence, will be extended along with the peace and prosperity that it provides" (p. 4).

"RAD" takes the posture that only the U.S. should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like Iraq, Iran, Korea and all of East Asia. There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge U.S. interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms build-up will be viewed as a potential threat.

"America’s global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.' The relative importance of these elements, and the threats to U.S. interests, may rise and fall over time. Europe, for example, is now extraordinarily peaceful and stable, despite the turmoil in the Balkans. Conversely, East Asia appears to be entering a period with increased potential for instability and competition. In the Gulf, American power and presence has achieved relative external security for U.S. allies, but the longer-term prospects are murkier. Generally, American strategy for the coming decades should seek to consolidate the great victories won in the 20th century – which have made Germany and Japan into stable democracies, for example – maintain stability in the Middle East, while setting the conditions for 21st century successes, especially in East Asia.

"A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America’s status as the world’s leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post-Cold War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter" (p. 5).
--------------------------------------------------

Now if you read this ( What idiots, Global Security Order?) you see the NeoCon agenda is about escalation of American arms and military power, while using preemptive strikes to keep the power. Sorry folks, but the America I grew up in wanted to show itself to be a beacon of freedom, by showing everyone how it could be to live with Constitutionally guaranteed Civil Liberties and by producing quality goods, while letting people travel and trade and do business.

When did the Nazi's take over our political landscape?

I know that was long, but trust me, I didn't even tip the iceburg on this document, it gets worse, but I just dredged up some of the juicy bits.

Global Security Order? Does that not have the ring of an Orwellian police state, on the world stage?